> Well, that would certainly be alarming if true, but I don't think it
> is.  As far as I can see, the overhead of making the visibility map
> crash-safe is just (1) a very small percentage increase in the work
> being done by VACUUM and (2) a slight possibility of extra work done
> by a foreground process if the visibility map bit changes at almost
> exactly the same time the process was about to insert, update, or
> delete a tuple.
> Let's forget the overhead posed by vacuum. Can you please point me to the
design which talks in detail of the second overhead?


Reply via email to